Second Language Learning and Language Teaching

parts of the mind. An early distinction in SLA research made by Uriel Weinreich
(1953) contrasted compound bilinguals, who link the two languages in their
minds, with coordinate bilinguals, who keep them apart. Thus the policy of
avoiding the first language assumes that the only valid form of L2 learning is coor-
dinate bilingualism. Even within Weinreich’s ideas, this would exclude the com-
pound bilinguals. But mostly the distinction between compound and coordinate
bilinguals has been watered down because of evidence that the two languages are
very far from separate. However distinct the two languages are in theory, in prac-
tice they are interwoven in terms of phonology, vocabulary, syntax and sentence
processing, as seen in several chapters of this book.
Ernesto Macaro (1997) observed a number of modern language teachers at work
in classrooms in England to see when they used the first language. He found five
factors that most commonly led to L1 use:
1 Using the first language for giving instructions about activities. As mentioned
above, the teacher has to balance the gains and losses of using the first or the
second language. Some teachers resort to the first language after they have tried
in vain to get the activity going in the second language.
2 Translating and checking comprehension. Teachers felt the L1 ‘speeded things up’.
3 Individual comments to students, made while the teacher is going round the class,
say, during pair work.
4 Giving feedback to pupils. Students are often told whether they are right or wrong
in their own language. Presumably the teacher feels that this makes it more ‘real’.
5 Using the first language to maintain discipline. Saying ‘Shut up or you will get a
detention’ in the first language shows that it is a serious threat, rather than
practising imperative and conditional constructions. One class reported that
their teacher slipped into the first language ‘if it’s something really bad!’
In terms of frequency, Carole Franklin (1990) found that over 80 per cent of
teachers used the first language for explaining grammar and for discussing objec-
tives; over 50 per cent for tests, correcting written work and teaching background;
under 16 per cent for organizing the classroom and activities and for chatting
informally.
SLA research provides no reason why any of these activities is not a perfectly
rational use of the first language in the classroom. If twenty-first-century teaching
is to continue to accept the ban on the first language imposed by the late nine-
teenth century, it will have to look elsewhere for its rationale. As Swain and
Lapkin (2000) put it: ‘To insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks
that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an
important cognitive tool.’
The L2 user and the native speaker